[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] New library for shared non-generic libav* utils

Fri Jul 9 23:39:35 CEST 2010

On 07/09/2010 01:52 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at>  writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:57:16PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>> Baptiste Coudurier<baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com>  writes:
>>>
>>>> On 07/09/2010 11:26 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>>>> Baptiste Coudurier<baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com>   writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/09/2010 11:02 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>>>>>> Baptiste Coudurier<baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com>    writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/09/2010 09:48 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at>     writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:41:59PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at>     writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I spended alot of time on libavutil and its only goal was to become
>>>>>>>>>>>> a general utils lib
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Said who?  It wasn't even your idea to begin with.  It was suggested
>>>>>>>>>>> and implemented by Alexander Strasser.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> svn blame of *.c *.h says:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so id say, yes iam still the primary maintainer and author, even if
>>>>>>>>>> we consider that blame is not the worlds most idiot proof way to
>>>>>>>>>> check this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you wrote more lines than anyone else, but not by any large
>>>>>>>>> margin.  Of the total ~11k lines, you only contributed roughly 25%.
>>>>>>>>> If lines were votes, you'd be losing.  You seem to like votes...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nah, this is heavily biased. A lot of lines are defines and macros in
>>>>>>>> *.h, not talking about the recent controversial documentation commits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much of libavutil functionality resides in header files, so counting
>>>>>>> them is anything but biased.Are you jealous because your name didn't
>>>>>>> show up at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you on crack ? You'd better stop your childish game and get your
>>>>>> shit together Mans. You are going too far.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one who needs to calm down.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty calm at the moment. On the contrary, during the past few
>>>> days I feel that you have been very offensive, and any thread seems an
>>>> opportunity to continue and provoke people, myself included. I think
>>>> your last sentence illustrates this well.
>>>>
>>>>> Did I do something to offend you?
>>>>
>>>> Not only me, but other people as well.
>>>
>>> Where exactly did I offend YOU?  I could understand, though not agree,
>>> with Michael being offended by something I said in the last few days,
>>> although offence has certainly not been my intent.
>>>
>>>>> A while ago when you and Michael had a big fight, I mostly sided
>>>>> with you.  Is this the thanks I get?
>>>>
>>>> That was a while ago, and as you can see, things have changed,
>>>> hopefully I'd say. Michael is the one trying to be reasonable
>>>> currently, and I second this.
>>>
>>> Please do tell me what made you turn all your hate on me.  In the last
>>> year or so, you have not missed one chance to jump into a discussion
>>> for no other apparent reason than to contradict me just for the sake
>>> of it.  Why this hostility?
>>
>> as you are asking this. i must admit that i have a similar feeling and
>> question in relation to you
>>
>> the intreadwrite stuff (why does it bother you so much if we export
>>   it through a clean and documented api, projects use it anyway and
>>   as is its certainly filled with more issues than if we tried to make
>>   it at least work in the common cases and documented it we can even
>>   officially say its not recommanded to be used ...
>
> Fine, I'll see what I can do there.  I guess something is better than
> nothing after all.
>
>> the gnu linker issues (you jumped at gnus defence but reading irc logs
>>   a while ago gave me the feeling you did not understand the issues there
>>   fully, so why did you attack me?
>
> I don't remember exactly what I said, but I never meant to attack you
> in person.  If I said something in anger, I apologise for that.
>
> I may not fully understand all the intricacies of the linker, but I do
> know this: it works the way the authors intend and document it to
> work.  It would be foolish of us to insist on changing
> well-established linker behaviour due to a weird corner-case where it
> would be more convenient for us if it did differently.  Even if we
> could get the linker changed, it would take many years for the change
> to trickle down to the places where it matters: distributions.  People
> building their own ffmpeg are not affected by the problem at all.
>
>> my svn repo on mphq, i remember you where against me being able to
>>   put my own little foss projects on mphq.
>
> It's not that I personally have anything against _you_ keeping your
> stuff there.  The hosting and bandwidth is sponsored by people doing a
> favour to ffmpeg and mplayer, not to random projects they don't know
> or care about.  Were every ffmpeg/mplayer developer to host his
> private projects there, the sponsors might feel their generous (yes
> really) donations were being abused.  We do not want that to happen.
>
> Now as long as it stays at just your stuff, resource usage is minimal,
> and should anyone ask, we can easily defend it.  We cannot however
> have our system turn into an FFforge for all and sundry to use and
> abuse at will.
>
>> the vote (you know if you dont want to vote you can just not vote)
>
> The thing about votes is that even those who choose not to participate
> are bound by the outcome, no matter how unjust.
>
>> libavutil now (we can add a new lib or just make libavfilter depend
>> on libavcodec)
>
> All I said was I have no objection to having some multimedia-related
> things in libavutil.  It is an opinion I have a right to express, just
> like you have a right to express yours.
>
>> the 3rd->1st person commit
>
> The style was inconsistent, and Stefano said he was too lazy to make
> it consistent.  I honestly believed I was doing a good deed.
>
>> the removial of the gnu linker bug explanation/rant
>
> Rants have no place in API documentation, especially not if they take
> the place of an actual description of what something does.  You cannot
> deny that the describes the macro more accurately after my change.
>
> Now I ask again, in which of the above instances did I offend BAPTISTE?

First there was mxfdec and prototypes:

You said:
 >> You still haven't fixed it.  If you don't commit a fix you're happy
 >> with within a few days, we'll go with Reimar's patch.  And once that
 >> is done, I *will* make prototype-less functions an error.

Reimar said:
 > Could we do it with a little less flaming for now?
 > I don't like having to deal with annoyed maintainers :-).
 > If we haven't solved it "peacefully" in a few days, I welcome
 > you to lay flaming waste...
 > Thanks.

Then:
You said:
 >>>>>>>>>> 6.  Votes like this are stupid.
Jason said:
 >>>>>>>> I vote 6.
I said:
 >>>>>> Your votes are considered void.
You said:
 >>>> What do you imagine gives you the authority to make such 
proclamations?
 >>
 >> I assumed that you cannot vote for a non-existent item. In this case,
 >> it makes these votes, void.
 >>
 >> However it seems that you can add new options, I'm against that btw.
You said:
 >Too bad for you you're not allowed to remove options.

And finally:
 > Are you jealous because your name didn't show up at all?

In 10 days, it's a bit much for me.

I found the tone agressive like I said earlier, and I found that offensive.

-- 
Baptiste COUDURIER
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
FFmpeg maintainer                                  http://www.ffmpeg.org